Do Children Have One Third Less Peripheral Vision Than Adults?

• Autorzy: Hancock P. A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The following report is a case study example of how problematic information can invade and percolate through the literature on forensic human factors and ergonomics. Initially, a highly doubtful assertion was used to bolster an argument made in a legal case of wrongful death. The assertion was supported through reference to a number of cited works. When the trail of evidence was pursued, however, it became clear that diverse citations had all branched from one, single, original and doubtful source. The fundamental issue, whether children have one third less peripheral vision than adults turns out to be much more complex than the original, simplistic spatial conception suggested. The case study illustrates the importance of ascertaining original citations and is yet another example of the frustration that often accompanies forensic activity where financial and legal concerns frequently over-ride the fundamental search for knowledge.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

case study; evidentiary basis; adult-child; peripheral vision

PL

widzenie peryferyjne; dorośli; dziecko; materiał dowodowy

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2004
• Tom: Vol. 10, No. 2
• Strony: 191--195
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 12 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Hancock P. A.

• University of Central Florida, USA

Bibliografia

• 1. Eubanks JJ, Hill PF. Pedestrian accident reconstruction and litigation. Tucson, AZ, USA: Lawyers & Judges; 1999.
• 2. University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Florida pedestrian planning and design handbook (April 1999). Retrieved April 8, 2004, from: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/ped01_05.pdf
• 3. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, Fingeret M, Johnson CA. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76(8):582-7.
• 4. Aspinall PA. Peripheral vision in children. Ophthalmologica 1976;173(5):364-74.
• 5. Cummings MF, van Hof-van Duin J, Mayer DL, Hansen RM, Fulton AB. Visual fields of young children. Behavioral and Brain Research 1998;29(1-2):7-16.
• 6. David SS, Foot HC, Chapmen AJ, Sheehy NP. Peripheral vision and the aetiology of child pedestrian accidents. Br J Psychol 1986;77(1):117-35.
• 7. David SS, Chapman AJ, Foot HC, Sheehy NP. Peripheral vision and child pedestrian accidents. Br J Psychol 1986;77(4):433-50.
• 8. Makino S, Otaki C, Nakayama T. Age-related changes in the normal visual field using colored targets. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 1992;96(10):1317-24. In Japanese.
• 9. Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P, Reicherts M, Bullinger A, Mermoud C. Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part II. Normative values. Vision Res 1998;38(14):2211-8.
• 10. Tschopp C, Viviani P, Reicherts M, Bullinger A, Rudaz N, Mermoud C, Safran AB. Does visual sensitivity improve between 5 and 8 years? A study in automated visual field examination. Vision Res 1999;39(6):1107-19.
• 11. Whiteside JA. Peripheral vision in children and adults. Child Dev 1976;47(1):290-3.
• 12. Wilson M, Quinn G, Dobson V, Breton M. Normative values for the visual fields in 4- to 12-year-old children using kinetic perimetry. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology Strabismus 1991;28(3):151-3.